ExMo Chief: energy independence is "isolationist"

ExMo Chief: energy independence is "isolationist"

On the same day Hilary Clinton released her plan to reduce the US addiction to foreign oil imports and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the CEO of the largest oil company in the world is balking at the pursuit for energy independence.

Rex Tillerson, chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil, has hit out at “isolationism” in energy policy (full article is firewalled) arguing that attempts to pursue energy independence are futile and counter-productive.

Regardless, no conceivable combination of demand moderation or domestic supply development can realistically close the gap and eliminate Americans' need for imports.”Tilerson's remarks, made at the World Energy Congress in Rome, provided support for calls from Opec, the oil producers' cartel, for what the group calls “security of demand”.

What are you trying to say? When someone pretends to be an honest broker or grassroots organisation but has a hidden agenda or source, as evidenced by attempts to hide their funding (e.g., friends of science), desmogblog is performing a legitimate service to expose them as having a conflict of interest or being an astroturf group. When someone has an obvious vested interest (e.g., Tillerson and Exxon-Mobil) and wades into debate on public policy, it’s legitimate to point out why their pronouncements should be taken with numerous grains of salt. My point was that, contrary to your suggestion, desmogblog didn’t have to dig up dirt on Tillerson since nobody would consider him an honest broker. What the hell was your point?

Tillerson is telling it straight. Few countries in the world are energy independent. Could the US or Canada become completely energy independent? Possibly, but it would likely involve the construction of 100 to 200 nuclear reactors in North America.

Interesting – many people have a philosophical opposition to regulating the economy, and that is usually expressed with particular attention to supply. You seem to be in support of regulating the economy by maintaining domestic demand for a foreign good. Odd. Also strange is your assertion that Canada could not be energy independent without lots of nuclear. Canada is a net energy exporter:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/northamerica/engsupp.htm
I’m not against Canada developing more alternative energy (including nuclear), but it doesn’t need to for energy independence.

Steve, if we wanted to be energy independent in Canada AND drastically reduce C02 emissions AND have this new energy source be affordable AND 7/24/365 reliable, yes, we would have to build many new nuclear plants here.

Your former comment was incorrect. This one is more accurate, but “many” is a relative term. It’s unclear to me that the number of nuclear plants would be great relative to their acceptance. If a graduated carbon tax was implemented (with reductions in income tax), the market and democratic processes would determine how future energy needs could be sustainably met.

Agreed- Mr. Tillersons’ statement is accurate and not worthy of attack. The U.S. is extremely dependent upon foreign energy sources and there is no obvious way to change the situation. While I would disagree with his use of the term “conceivable”- certainly we could come up with some solutions- there is likely not a viable means of making the U.S./Canada energy independent.

Whatever else he may be, Mr. Tillerson is not wrong in the quoted statement.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.